Some days I think people choose to miss the point.
In the weeks following the election, those of us opposing the coming Administration and protesting what we see as very problematic Cabinet appointments and flag-raising political maneuvering, have received a similar scolding from Conservatives as we engage in debate on the issues. It’s an attempt to call us out for our alleged hypocrisy:
“I see, you’re all for diversity unless someone disagrees with you! Apparently we don’t get included in that! You Liberals are so tolerant!” they say.
Well, they’re partially right.
The commitment to diversity and equality means demanding that everyone gets a seat at the table; that each person’s inherent worth is recognized there, that no one is devalued or excluded based on fixed and fundamental part of their identity: skin color, gender, nation of origin, sexual orientation, religion, etc.
This means that we declare every human being equally valuable. It does not mean we treat all behavior equally:
If your opinion directly endangers people based on those essential parts of who they are–we’ll pushback.
If your worldview permits you to treat someone as less deserving of civil rights or it discards their basic humanity–your worldview is a threat to true diversity.
If your evaluation of another makes you more tolerant of their mistreatment or less outraged by hate crimes against them, that’s a fundamental problem.
Active discrimination and violence don’t get a seat at the table. They don’t get proximity to do further damage to people.
For example, a gay teenager and a Baptist preacher are both invited into genuine community and both welcomed into conversation, but if the preacher insists on the inherent depravity of the teenager, if he or she cannot see the teenager as fully equal to them in the eyes of God or the Law, this is a barrier to diverse community and an assault on the teenager’s very identity. The teenager’s place at the table is terribly altered by the preacher, not the other way around.
Diversity will always err on the side of the marginalized and always be an inconvenience to the privileged because diversity seeks justice. It demands benevolence for those who are not experiencing it.
The contention for the past year has been that all political perspectives are valid, but I won’t consent to that and it’s a matter of personal safety. No individual groups of white people are explicitly, measurably endangered by a Progressive platform, they receive the same consideration. But I can illustrate the specific ways people of color, immigrants, Muslims, women, and the LGBTQ community are less safe and less represented by the coming Administration, which is already by its conduct, a movement of exclusion.
JOHN PAVLOVITZ, AUTHOR
Friend, I can respect you and seek to understand you, while declaring your actions or those of politicians you support, completely reprehensible. I can criticize your conduct or the results of your behavior without attacking your worth. That’s how this works.
If you believe people of color are simply inferior to white people, you’re going to have to work hard to stay at the table.
If you claim LGBTQ to be abominations, you’ll have to do better.
If you believe Muslims are likely terrorists, you probably won’t feel welcome at the table for long.
And so no, it isn’t at all hypocritical to champion diversity and to confront injustice simultaneously. They are fully collaborative and integrated movements.
All people are welcomed at the table but bigotry isn’t, so save the allegation that its acceptance is a requirement for me.
Equality demands decency toward humanity’s diverse gathering–and it’s what I demand.
AVAILABLE THROUGH AMAZON.COM OR LOCAL BOOKSTORES
[The above article appeared first in John Pavlovitz’s STUFF THAT NEEDS TO BE SAID on January 12, 2017. Permission pending.]
Repeating stories multiple times may be normal for some seniors who are active and lead fulfilling lives–a natural part of aging–but that was NOT normal for my quick-witted, sometimes sharp-tongued mother. It was just that small shift in her behavior that made me stop in my tracks more than once when having conversations with her that usually ended up in frustration for us both.
One afternoon in 2002 while she was babysitting my son for me, she called and asked if she could give my toddler a peanut butter cup. That’s when I had that awful sense of dread and my pulse quickened. My son has a high peanut allergy and she knew this. So began the slow spiral of watching my beautiful mom dwindle away to Alzheimer’s Disease–and watching the startling impact that it would have on my father as well.
Today, Mom resides in a skilled nursing facility in Cincinnati, Ohio, where Dad goes to see her almost every day. She has no memory (or at least any that make sense in her “babbling speak”) or ability to do anything for herself and requires 24-hour-care. She is at the end stages of Alzheimer’s.
The Search for the Right Fit
THE AUTHOR AND HER MOTHER
Getting Mom to her current “home” was not easy by any stretch, and I wonder how much worse it could have been had I not been a professional in Geriatric-Healthcare. I currently work in Michigan for the nation’s largest home health and hospice provider as a home health specialist, coordinating new patients and helping them transition home from a hospital or skilled nursing facility, and also by partnering with local physicians who recognize the need for medical home care for their patients.
I made the jump from advertising sales to a marketing and admissions director at a skilled nursing and rehab center while researching Alzheimer’s disease for my own family. One of my advertising clients was the marketing and admissions director in this facility, and I was constantly asking her for advice on what she thought we should be doing for my mom and dad based on her expertise. She was eventually promoted to executive director and ended up hiring me to fill the marketing position. (I’m sure that I was driving her nuts with questions!) I couldn’t get my hands on enough resources and I found my way into an industry that fit me perfectly, through the fear and emotions of watching what was happening to my own mom. I hoped that I could help guide others through my own experience.
The worst part about watching my parents unravel was also watching my dad’s health decline due to caregiver burnout. It is a real phenomenon and it was petrifying to watch. Dad’s goal was to hide Mom’s disease to everyone in the family (as if we didn’t see it) and their community to save her dignity and to hide his own fears.
One evening, they were at a local restaurant for dinner and Dad was so physically and mentally exhausted that he went into an almost catatonic state. Luckily, the restaurant owners knew my parents and their situation, called an ambulance, and contacted my brother. None of us three kids were in Cincinnati this particular evening. I was living in Michigan, my younger brother was living in Missouri, and my older brother who DID live in Cincinnati happened to be vacationing in Colorado.
So, sick to my stomach, I packed a bag and started the drive home to Cincinnati. Dad was admitted to the hospital and cousin Patty stayed with my mom until we could all get there.
My dad was in the hospital for four days and the main diagnosis on his chart was exhaustion! He has no recollection of those first few days but did make a full recovery. My brothers and I met at my parent’s house within the day and finally saw firsthand how bad it had become at home. Mom was totally dependent on Dad and was also living in a state of high anxiety. In talking with my dad in the hospital, we found out that Mom had also become violent with him because she didn’t know who this “strange man was” in their house. Finally, it was clear to Dad that keeping Mom at home was unsafe, and so began the process of finding an assisted living/memory care facility with 24-hour-care. One might think this was the easiest part for me, since I was already working in Geriatric-Healthcare, but nothing could have been further from the truth.
My parents still lived in Western Hills in Cincinnati, and my dad was set on putting her into a retirement village on that side of town. I didn’t think this was the best choice with Mom’s anxious and erratic behavior patterns, and met with their folks to discuss it. I asked them to please go to meet Mom at home and do a complete assessment on her, as I didn’t think that she would “fit” into their calm environment with her wandering and behaviors. They stated that an assessment wasn’t necessary, as they felt comfortable about effectively taking care of her. Dad was also insistent about this facility as he already knew some of the staff. Mom was admitted as a Private Pay Resident. Unfortunately, I was absolutely correct, and she was sent in and out of the hospital Geriatric-Psychiatric unit to “calm” her down. She was put on heavy psychotropic medications, and after the third hospital trip, the Retirement Village called my dad and stated that she could not return, as she was not appropriate for their setting and that she was basically too much to handle. Shocker, right? I was livid!
Here we were, right back where we started, with no prospects of what to do with her and facing a hospital discharge within 24 hours. Other facilities also declined to accept her.
MARIA’S MOM NOW
Finally, we found a facility who accepted Mom and she still resides there today. They have done a wonderful job! They have been so kind to my dad, as well. Living through the first part of this journey into Alzheimer’s with my mom and dad has had a huge impact on me. I have now made it my mission to help people find help and resources during these times of crisis.
LOVING CARE IN APPROPRIATE FACILITIES
[Maria (Martini) Deneau is a native of Cincinnati, Ohio, the only daughter of four children born to Bernard and Evelyn Martini. She is a graduate of The University of Cincinnati and is currently employed by Kindred Healthcare–Kindred at Home in Southwest Michigan as a Home Health Specialist. She is a Certified Dementia Practitioner, having worked in Geriatric healthcare since 2007. Maria is a National advocate for The Alzheimer’s Association, serving as Ambassador for the 6th Congressional District in Michigan and Washington D.C. She also serves as a Board Member for Fund Development at Senior Services of Kalamazoo County and as a Board Member for Professionals Focused on Aging in Kalamazoo, MI. She has been recognized by the Ohio State Senate for Outstanding Achievement and exemplary service to the community and its youth while living in Cincinnati, Ohio.]
[Editor’s Note: For those of you who have not been following the brouhaha over Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s comments concerning the presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump, here’s a review from Washington (CNN) followed by line of comments. This material is used with the permission of Daily Kos. Readers are invited to go to: Daily Kos.com for a complete list of comments, explanatory, argumentive and otherwise.]
Supreme Court Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg isn’t going to let the vapors of the traditional media over her comments about Donald Trump make her stop talking.
Washington (CNN)Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s well-known candor was on display in her chambers late Monday, when she declined to retreat from her earlier criticism of Donald Trump and even elaborated on it.”He is a faker,” she said of the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, going point by point, as if presenting a legal brief. “He has no consistency about him. He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego. … How has he gotten away with not turning over his tax returns? The press seems to be very gentle with him on that.”Trump is, of course, tweeting his outrage, which pretty much proves her point. Chances are she’s not going to let that get to her, either.COMMENT
Chief Justice Roberts has — just about sotto voce — said they do [have a code of ethics on the Supreme Court]. But it’s never been examined and ruled on by the “supremes” themselves. Who else would have the authority to do that? In fact, historically supremes have run for public office while serving. Surely no one believes they said nothing negative about their opponents? And that’s only one of the issues one can envision falling under a code of ethics. John Jay was Chief Justice when he ran for the governorship of New York — twice (lost the first time).
Then you have people like Scalia and Thomas heading up fundraisers for right-wing groups. in those cases, their value certainly was tied to their role as supremes. No disciplinary action, not even a word of reproof from colleagues. Supreme means supreme, and over the years no one has taken more advantage of that than the right wing of the court. Time for a liberal to speak up in the face of a candidate like sleazy Don and also time for liberals to stop supporting a false idea of the supremes that has only helped the wingnuts.
They don’t. Of course, who would enforce such rules on the Supreme Court if they wanted to ignore them? Hence, such rules wouldn’t make sense at that level.
However, I believe there is an implication and assumption that judges on the highest court of the land should adhere to the same ethical guidelines that the most junior judge in the Federal system is expected to adhere to unless there is an extraordinary compelling reason to do otherwise (and, intentionally and publicly spouting personal opinions about those who you may later hear a case about is NOT one of those cases — Ginsburg opinion on Trump is no more significant than mine — we both get one vote against him).
The judge who Trump viciously attacked has followed judicial ethics and kept his mouth shut in response to those attacks. I would expect a Supreme Court justice who Trump really hadn’t specifically attacked to be at least as ethical.
Remember, judges are supposed to avoid even the appearance of bias. Ginsburg can no longer do this with respect to Trump.
If we ended up in a Bush v. Gore type situation in this election, she would clearly be expected to recuse herself. Of course, she might not do so as she may not care what her legacy is.
In such a case, she would really be in a no-win situation. If she recused herself and it resulted in a narrow decision (perhaps 4-3) for Trump, she will rightfully go down in history as being the Justice who was too childish to accept the responsibility of being an active Supreme Court Justice and did something stupid that required her to recuse herself and throw the election to Trump. If she didn’t recuse herself and her vote was the deciding factor (perhaps 4-4 so lower court ruling that favored Clinton stands), history would appropriately question if the Supreme Court was a legitimate body due to her actions.
Sorry, you take a job, you take the constraints with it.
I think you should read the article at politico about how “constrained” by ethics the supremes have not been. Not going to link to it again. It’s on the front page at politico and easily found. Really, we all need to stop pontificating without facts in hand and keep in mind that RBG has been around long enough to know exactly what has gone on on the court. she’s not some dipsy broad whose mind has gone, as sleazy Donald would like to portray her. There are serious issues at stake for the country and she’s playing her cards: supreme trumps hate.
Those rules? They do exist — but on paper they only exist for the lower Courts.
There is only ONE singular regulation on Supreme Court Justices from the Constitution:
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
US Code contains constraints on lower court Judges. But for the Supremes? That one rule is all there is.
Since it’s a subjective rule, it can mean whatever you think it means.
”Shall hold their office during good behavior.”